Uh, no.
I’ve never seen the film.
When it comes to horror films, if it ain’t giant & Japanese, I ain’t interested.
I’m staking my bets on war with Iran
Are you serious?
Do you really believe God punishes Nations for the transgressions of their leaders?
I have to admit, I was startled by this assertion too.
It sounded like something Pat Robertson would say (and HAS!).
Bush will push for tax reform–possibly a cosumption tax in place of the income tax–not merely tax relief. There is support in both parties for it.
Since when is it just Bush?
The American People voted him in.
Twice.
Big prediction:
Kiss the internet goodbye. Ashcroft is going to sterilize it into network television. He’s been talking about how he wanted to arrest everyone involved with porn for years, now’s his big chance.
Also:
War with Iran, but only if they don’t get their nuclear program together before Iraq is somewhat pacified. Otherwise we’ll impotently shake our fist at them like we do with NK.
Some level of military conflict with Syria. I doubt we’ll see boots on the ground, because there’s no chance of a politically beneficial conclusion. But we’ll probably launch the odd airstrike.
Lower deficits. The Pubbies don’t need to buy off their districts to get re-elected now, so we’ll see big cuts on social programs.
That, and the transgressions of the 59,025,426 who voted him in.
Forgot one:
With at least one SC justice heading off to the happy gavelling grounds, sodomy is most likely going back on the books, and I wouldn’t be surprised to see abortion illegal in four years as well.
Israel doesn’t have the guts. (I wish they did, but they don’t.)
If they did, how would Iran retaliate exactly? Given that Israel has nukes, and Iran wouldn’t (beacuse their reactors were just destroyed,) and that Israel has one of the best air forces in the world and as far as I know Iran doesn’t have an air force, and the fact that Israel has laid out every Arab army that’s ever tried attacking it with conventional warfare in the past.
I don’t think Iran would be very successful against Israel, so I don’t think they would attack it unless they were going to nuke it.
Iran has missiles that can reach Israel. They don’t have to be nuclear; radiation dirty bombs, biological or chemical weapons would suffice.
Despite the horrifying scenarios some choose to put forth, I think that Bush’s second term will be far more conciliatory than his first.
He took a huge gamble when he invaded Iraq. The initial results have been pretty fucking disasterous – we can only hope and pray that things will stablize. The fact that he has been reelected does not (IMHO) mean W will assume that he has free reign to screw up all over again. He may not have to worry about running again, but he does have his legacy and the future of the Republican Party to worry about. If he were to fulfill the dire predictions of the teeth-gnashers who are wailing en masse today (invading more countries, restoring the draft, etc.), he would lose the support of all but the lunatic fringe on the far right. Since Cheney is an obvious no-show for the 2008 slugfest versus Hillary Clinton, W *has * to ease up. If he does half the things in the next four years that the doomsayers are claiming, there won’t be a single Republican elected to any federal office the next time around.
I know, I know. Many of you will be very interested in finding out how we can achieve the extinction of the GOP without going through four years of fuckups first. Sorry. Won’t happen.
Apparently He’s not above putting the hurricane smack down on a particular state within our great nation as punishment for effing up the last election. (Or maybe as a warning not to eff this one up too)
What, what?!
I don’t have time to read through the Michael Moore propaganda or the tinfoil hat commens in this thread but:
-
It is widely thought Bush is pro-choice, so probably any moves against abortion will be put far on the back burner as Bush no longer has to pander to most voters.
-
Bush didn’t run on 9/11, anyone that says he did did not watch the election.
-
If a candidate feels he is better at stopping terrorism, then to not come out and say his opponent is worse at it is just stupid.
Furthermore if a candidate DID NOT think he would be able to better stop terrorism than his opponent then it would be morally reprehensible for that person to even seek office.
This many posts in a thread about bush and not one Hitler reference? Have we finally grown past that?
Any more wars are doubtful, though I have heard Cuba rumors which are a bit easier to swallow than some. Still, we have not the troops to fight another war unless Iraq settles down real fast. Also, even if Bush wants a draft, noone in congress will go for it. They’ll be trying to position themselves for 2008 and won’t want that lil nugget on their record.
As far as the budget goes, I expect there to be some possibly harsh cuts in programs in order to get things more in line than they are now. Bush isn’t crazy enough to raise taxes, and the only other way to fix things is to cut spending.
Diplomatically, Bush will strengthen his ties to other countries, simply because I don’t think he can do much worse.
The areas that I don’t see much improvement in are science and the environment. Bush doesn’t seem to have much use for them. Watch for them to lose funding in a big way.
One thing that I just thought of: it’s possible that we will see some republicans breaking ranks with the president. They’ll want to position themselves for the 2008 run and if they smell some blood in the water, I think they’ll pounce.
What exactly does “a culture of life” refer to, then? (Also, IIRC, “most voters” are pro-choice. Most of Bush’s base is not.)
They must have just watched all those speeches where Bush repeatedly invoked 9/11.
-
Hey, that’s great. Since Bush doesn’t need to pander anymore, I suppose he will go ahead and allow more federal funding for stem cell research, right? Also, why did he bring up Dred Scott during the debate? “No litmus test” was just another ploy to get elected.
-
Did you watch the RNC? You do know where the convention was held, don’t you? Do you realize that it was only weeks before the anniversary? Did you miss Pataki, Giuliani, and Bush at the RNC all invoking 9/11? Do you remember seeing the commercial with Bush talking babbling about how he couldn’t imagine how difficult it was for parents to decide which child to pick up? Do you remember the commercials he ran of firefighters bringing flag-draped stretchers out from Ground Zero? How would you describe all of that? That wasn’t running on 9/11? Give me a break. I think you’re the one that missed the election (and all of the campaigning).
I have never, ever heard anyone say that or read anyone write that before. Do you have a cite?
Have you guys read up on Bush’s concept of an ‘Ownership Society’? There are a lot of good ideas in it, and he claims that that’s what he wants to do in his second term.
Basically, the idea is that the old institutions aren’t keeping up with things like worker mobility, the pace of technology, etc. A classic example is being tied to one employer for your health insurance, or relying on being a 40-year company man to get a decent retirement package.
Bush wants to put power in the hands of individuals. He wants medical savings accounts. Retirement savings accounts. School vouchers. Other instruments that individuals can control. Your retirement plan should move with you from job to job. Your health care plan should move with you. You should be free to pick the schools your kids go to.
Bush is a transformational president. All of us in the west are running on borrowed time right now - Medicare, Social Security, and other entitlement programs are on the verge of self-destructing. Ten more years, maybe, before we have to start paying the piper.
Retirement savings accounts WILL cause a shortfall that will have to be covered. Right now, the money you put into Medicare does not go into an account - it goes to paying the benefits of those already retired. If Bush opens up retirement savings accounts, and allows people to divert some of their money there, then the shortfall in Social Security will have to be paid for. And that’s okay - it has to be paid for anyway. Might as well bite some of that bullet now and reduce the future liability - sort of a way to pay down the debt.
But I think this is going to severely constrain Bush’s spendthrift ways. He isn’t going to raise or lower taxes again, I don’t think, other than trying to get some of his previous cuts made permanent. Instead, he’ll focus on these programs. That means he’s going to have to control spending.
Seems to me the Democrats have addressed those issues too. If the government provides health insurance, you aren’t tied to one employer, or even to employment itself.
So, if you ever need to go to the hospital, you better hope it isn’t within the first X years after you start saving!